MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Hokitika Guardian, 18 October 1932, Page 2

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

LICENSING ACT CASES. GREYMOUT'H, October 18. At the Magistrate’s Court yesterday oases dealt with by Mr Meld rum S.M., included the following; LICENSEE FINED £lO. ( The licensee of the Central Hotel. Patrick ;Keating, was charged with exposing liquor for sale, and selling liquor after hours on September 24. Sir ’J. IW. Hannan, on behalf of defendant, pleaded guilty to the charge of selling unlawfully, and the other charge was withdrawn by the police. The iSenior-Sergeant stated that, at 12.25 a.m., the police entered the hotel as,, the licensee opened the door, evidently to let someone out. The bar was open k and the bar parlour full of young men, there being at least fifteen of them. With the exception of five, however, they .got away. There were twelve glasses on the mantelpiece, and four on the bar counter. "The licensee, of course, had nothing to jpays,” stated the Senior-Sergeant. H e handed a list of previous convictions to the S.M. ■Mr Hannan said that the fact s were as .stated by the police. The S.M. fined defendant £lO, with 10s costs, and pointed out that there ■were two previous convictions within the pa£t thvO years, OBSTRUCTION CHARGE,

Incidents which took place at the Rpyal Hotel, early on the mornings of September 29, led to a ,number of charges against the and his son. 'Andrew Lees, senr,, the licensee, . was charged with delaying Sergeant Murray in the discharge of h's duty, by refusing to open the bar for examination, when requested to do so ; opening the premises unlawfully for the sale of liquor, and unlawfully exposing liquor 'for sale. Andrew Robert Lees, junr., was charged with unlawfully supplying liquor, exposing liquor for sale; and opening the premises for the sale of liquor. Defendant did not appenr.

Sergeant Murray stated that, accompanied by Constables Patterson and .Robinson, he visited the hotel at 12.55 a.m.. They .rang the bell, and copild hear movement and voices inside. After a minute or two, they were admitted by Lees, junr., who was the barman. Two men found in the bar parlour Iliad no excuse for being on the premises. They said that Lees, junr., admitted them, and the latter said that was correct. He stated that the men rang the bell, and he thought they were boa-rder*. Asked why he had the men locked' in the parlour, he said be bad no excuse. Witness asked Lees to open the bar, but he. replied that his father had the keys, and had gone to bed. Lees, junr., went upstairs, but he d'd not return, and, after waiting three or four minutes, witness went to the licensee’s bedroom, and ai~ked him to open- the bar.; Lees came downstairs, and objected, saying it was not reasonable of the police to t' e ” quest the opening of the bar at such an hour. Witness said he thought there was 'someone in the bar, After trying for 10 or 15 minutes to perruade the licensee to open the bai, witness threatened to post a man at the bar ’door until the morning. The licensee eventually unlocked the her, lend three men were found inside, in darkness. One man said he intended to stay at the hotel, but had not booked a bed. The other two men said they went to the hotel with the third man. Three glasses gave signs of having .contained liquor, but witness did not see any money on the counter. Th e three men said that the door was open, and they walked into the hotel. The Senior-Sergeant stated that

the licensee had not been before the Court for about ten years, and that probably accounted for : his anger at being -caught. The police regarded the refusal to open the bar as a serious offence. If licensees took up that attitude, it would enable all truces of trading to be removed, before the police could view the premises. It was a serious obstruction, so far as the inspection of premises was concerned, and was equally as serious as the charge of unlawfully selling liquor. So far as Lees, junr., was concerned, the charges of opening the premises and exposing liquor would he withdrawn, and a conviction asked for on the charge of supplying liquor. Th e S.'M. fined Lees, senr., £2, with 10 s costs, on the obstruction charge, and £2, with 10s costs, on the charge of unlawfully opening the premises, tlbe charge of exposing liquor for 'ale being withdrawn. Lees, junr., was fined £l, with 10s costs, for unlawfully supplying liquor.

POLICE METHODS CRITICISED. One of the main features of the case in which the licensee of the Brian Boru Hotel, William Henry Giescking, was charged with aiding and abetting a person unlawfully on the premises early on the morning of September 28, was the protest made by Mr J. W. Hannan, wh 0 appeared for -defendant, against the action of the po-lice, in entering women’s bedrooms in the course- of their srt'rdh for per-mPs unlawfully 'on tile Premises. Defendant pleaded not guilty to the charge -of aiding and abetting. After hearing, the evidence "l the boarder and the licensee, the S.M. decided there was no proof that th e licensee had been guilty o'f aiding and abetting. “The question has be e n raised m,s to <th e police entering bedrooms,” added Mr M'eldrum. “I am not, on the present occasion, ended upon for an expression of opinion. All I am called upon -to express an opinion about is \dhether th t . licensee aided and assisted the mail found on the premises. The -evidence, lads to pro'c the charge, and tli© case i>s dismissed.